> Secondly I read nothing in the above which implies in any way that
> the storage for the string constant used as an array initializer
> cannot ever be read-only.

Certainly.  I never claimed they cannot be read-only.

Unfortunately for your argument, not all read-only storage has
const-qualified type.

> Note also that there is no distinction in Standard C (though there
> seems to be in GCC's implementation) between a definition in the form
> "char foo[]" and a definition in the form "char *foo".

This is true when - and ONLY when - foo is a formal parameter to a
function.

> When that initializer is a string constant then the storage for the
> array is const-qualified since the string constant may be read-only

Not all read-only storage has const-qualified type.

> All sources I've found are quite explicit in saying that an
> implementation _MAY_ use read-only storage for string constants

Yes.

> and as such they must _always_ be const-qualified.

No.

I don't know where you got this delusion that all read-only storage
must have a const-qualified type, but it doesn't agree with any other
reference I've ever found.  What's more, it has nothing whatever to do
with adding const to a pointed-to type and then removing it later when
you know the original pointer was actually non-const, something you
seem convinced is verboten, but have never explained why.

Given those, I see no point in continuing the discussion.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B